| 1 |
On Tue, Apr 03 2012, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 23:13:43 -0400, Allan Gottlieb wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Yes indeed I have it masked for exactly that reason. I will be going to |
| 6 |
>> a combined / + /usr when the semester ends. I use this machine for my |
| 7 |
>> lectures and assignments so prefer to break it from late may through |
| 8 |
>> august. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> I just tried masking the -r2 (and higher) pciutils. |
| 11 |
>> But this conflicts with a newly-required hwids-2012-0401. |
| 12 |
>> The later is required by a new usbutils-005-r1 |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> This led me to mask >=usbutils-005-r1. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Now the proposed update world leaves portage happy, but me worried. I |
| 17 |
>> haven't actually done the update world. It is reasonably to have so |
| 18 |
>> much masking? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Yes. What has happened is that the ID data has been moved out of pciutils |
| 21 |
> and usbutils, so hwids blocks the older versions. If you want to stick |
| 22 |
> with the older udev, you need the older pciutils and this means you need |
| 23 |
> a matching version of usbutils. All this will disappear when you unmask |
| 24 |
> udev, as it did for me yesterday. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thank you. |
| 27 |
allan gottlieb |
Archives